Listening Section 3: Multiple Choice & Matching: IELTS Academic 9990 (IELTS Academic)

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Josh: Hey Priya, have you started drafting the coastal report yet? I want to sort out our approach before the weekend. Priya: Not properly. I've just been rereading our notes from the Thornmouth Cove visit. We really need to agree on which beach-profiling method we're actually going to write up. Josh: I was going to describe the ranging-pole-and-clinometer method, since that's what we mostly used on the day. Priya: We did use it, but half our clinometer readings looked shaky, remember how the wind kept knocking the pole? I think it'll be safer to base the report on the tape-and-level method instead. Josh: Fair point, actually. Our readings did jump around a lot near marker four. Okay, let's go with tape-and-level, then, and just mention the clinometer approach briefly as something we tried first. Priya: Good. Now, who's writing what? I was thinking I'd take the methodology and you take the results section, since you're better with the spreadsheets. Josh: Actually, could we swap? I'd rather write the methodology. I took most of the field notes, so I remember the sequence of steps better than the numbers. You're quicker at turning data into something readable. Priya: That works for me. I'll do results and the graphs, you do methodology, and we'll split the introduction and discussion once we've both finished our sections. Josh: Sounds good. Speaking of graphs, were you planning a bar chart for the profile heights, or a line graph? Priya: I keep going back and forth. A bar chart would work, but since we're really showing how the beach gradient changes continuously along the transect, I think a line graph will represent the trend more clearly than separate bars. Josh: Yeah, that makes sense once you put it that way. A line graph it is. Priya: One more thing. The brief says sources should be cited, but it doesn't specify which referencing style. Should we just use whatever we used last term? Josh: I checked the module handbook this morning, actually, and it does specify, they want Harvard style this time, not the numbered style we used before. Priya: Oh, good thing you checked, I would have used the wrong one. Harvard it is, then. Josh: Last thing, do you think we should email Dr. Iwu about extending the deadline? A few people in the class were talking about asking for extra days. Priya: I thought about it too, but I don't think we actually need it, we've basically got everything we need from the field visit, we just need to write it up now. I'd rather submit on time and not draw attention to it. Josh: Agreed, let's just stick to the original date.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. Which method do the students decide to use as the basis for their report? A. The ranging-pole-and-clinometer method B. The tape-and-level method C. A GPS-based elevation survey

2. Why does Priya want to change the profiling method? A. She found the tape-and-level method easier to carry B. The clinometer readings were unreliable in windy conditions C. Dr. Iwu instructed all groups to switch methods

3. Who will write the methodology section? A. Priya, because she is quicker with spreadsheets B. Josh, because he remembers the field-note sequence best C. Both students jointly across the whole report

4. What kind of chart do the students agree to use for the profile heights? A. A bar chart B. A line graph C. A scatter plot with a trend line

5. Which referencing style will the report use? A. The numbered style used last term B. Whatever style each section's author prefers C. Harvard style, as specified in the module handbook

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Dr. Whitcombe: Right, talk me through where you've got to with the Bramwell & Finch presentation. You're on next Thursday, aren't you? Amara: Yes, Thursday. We've drafted most of the slides. Dev's going to open with the background on the loyalty-scheme redesign, and I'll cover the data on customer retention. Dr. Whitcombe: That ordering makes sense. Dev, how are you planning to open. With the timeline of the changes, or something else? Dev: I was going to start with the timeline, but actually, thinking about it more, I think opening with the problem, why the old points-based scheme was failing, will grab the audience's attention better than diving straight into dates. Dr. Whitcombe: Agreed, lead with the problem, then the timeline can come afterwards as supporting detail. Amara: For my section, I've got two options for the retention figures, either a single slide with one big headline statistic, or a slide breaking the numbers down by customer age group. Dev: I'd go with the single headline figure, wouldn't you? Keeps it simple for a ten-minute slot. Amara: I thought that too at first, but on reflection I think the breakdown is actually stronger here, because the headline figure on its own hides that the scheme worked really well for younger customers but barely moved the numbers for older ones. That contrast is the interesting part of our argument. Dr. Whitcombe: I'd support the breakdown too. A single average figure would actually undersell your analysis. Dev: Fair enough, breakdown it is. What about the recommendation slide at the end, are we suggesting they roll the scheme out to all age groups, or target it? Amara: Given what the data shows, I don't think a blanket rollout makes sense. I think we should recommend they keep targeting the loyalty scheme specifically at younger customers and try something different for the older group. Dev: Yes, that's where the evidence points, so let's build the recommendation slide around that. Dr. Whitcombe: Good (make sure that slide references the retention breakdown directly, so the logic is easy to follow. Now, who's handling questions afterwards) will you split them, or will one of you take the lead? Amara: We were going to split them by topic. I'd take anything about the data, Dev takes anything about the scheme's mechanics. Dr. Whitcombe: That's sensible, but I'd suggest whoever answers first also briefly summarise the question before answering, with three assessors in the room, it helps if everyone's clear on what's actually being asked. Dev: Good idea, we'll do that. Last thing, should we leave a slide up during questions, or go back to a blank screen? Amara: I think a blank screen is cleaner, don't you? Less distracting. Dr. Whitcombe: Actually, I'd go the other way, leave the recommendation slide up during questions. It keeps your key argument visible and gives you something to point back to if the questions get tricky. Amara: Good point, we'll keep it on screen, then.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. How do Dev and Amara decide to open the presentation? A. With a timeline of the changes to the loyalty scheme B. With an explanation of why the old points-based scheme was failing C. With the headline retention statistic

2. What does Amara decide to include in her section on retention figures? A. A single headline statistic covering all customers B. A breakdown of retention figures by customer age group C. A comparison between Bramwell & Finch and a rival company

3. Why does Amara prefer the breakdown over a single figure? A. It is easier to fit onto one slide B. It shows the scheme worked well for younger customers but not older ones C. Dr. Whitcombe told her the single figure was inaccurate

4. What recommendation do the students decide to make? A. Roll the loyalty scheme out to all age groups equally B. Continue targeting younger customers and try a different approach for older customers C. Discontinue the loyalty scheme altogether

5. How will Amara and Dev handle questions after the presentation? A. Amara will answer all questions herself B. They will split questions by topic, each covering their own area C. Dr. Whitcombe will answer questions on their behalf

6. What does the group decide to display on screen while taking questions? A. A blank screen B. The timeline slide C. The recommendation slide

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Freya: Thanks for making time, Dr. Petrov. I wanted to talk through my dissertation idea, at the moment it's "the effect of noise on concentration," but I know that's far too broad. Dr. Petrov: It is broad, yes. "noise" could mean almost anything, from traffic outside a window to music in headphones. What drew you to the topic in the first place? Freya: Honestly, it was working in the campus library. Some floors are silent, others are full of low background chatter, and I noticed my own concentration seemed to dip on the noisier floors. Dr. Petrov: That's a much more useful starting point than "noise" in general. So we're really talking about ambient chatter in shared workspaces, rather than something like traffic noise or music. Freya: Exactly. Should I compare chatter against complete silence, then? Dr. Petrov: You could, but a silence condition is quite hard to control for outside a lab, and it's also not that representative of a real workspace, nobody studies in total silence for long. I'd suggest comparing intermittent chatter against a continuous, steady background hum instead, like air-conditioning noise. That's a fairer real-world comparison. Freya: That makes sense, actually, you rarely get true silence, but you do get both of those in most buildings. I'll compare intermittent chatter with continuous hum, then. Dr. Petrov: Good. Now, how were you planning to measure concentration itself? Freya: I was thinking a mental arithmetic task, since it's easy to mark right or wrong. Dr. Petrov: It's easy to mark, but arithmetic performance is affected by maths anxiety in a lot of participants, which would muddy your results. A proofreading task, spotting inserted errors in a passage of text, tends to isolate sustained attention more cleanly, and it avoids that maths-anxiety confound almost entirely. Freya: Okay, proofreading it is, then, rather than arithmetic. Dr. Petrov: Who are you thinking of recruiting? Freya: I was going to recruit online through social media, to get a bigger sample. Dr. Petrov: An online sample sounds appealing for numbers, but you'd lose all control over the actual noise conditions people are sitting in at home. The whole design depends on controlling that. I'd recruit undergraduates on campus instead and run the sessions in a bookable study room, even if that means a smaller sample. Freya: Right, that's fair. The sample would be smaller, but at least the noise condition would be genuinely controlled. Campus recruitment it is. Dr. Petrov: One more thing, have you thought about ethics approval? Freya: I was going to submit the ethics form after I'd finalised the proofreading materials. Dr. Petrov: I'd flip that around, if I were you. Submit the ethics application first, in outline, since approval can take a couple of weeks, and refine the materials while you're waiting rather than afterwards. That way you're not sitting idle once the materials are ready. Freya: Good point, I'll get the ethics form in this week, then, and keep developing the materials alongside it.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. What originally drew Freya to the topic of noise and concentration? A. A lecture she attended on acoustics B. Her own experience of concentration dipping on noisier library floors C. A previous dissertation she had read on the subject

2. What specific noise comparison does Dr. Petrov recommend? A. Intermittent chatter versus complete silence B. Traffic noise versus music C. Intermittent chatter versus continuous background hum

3. Why does Dr. Petrov reject a comparison with complete silence? A. Silence is difficult to control for and unrepresentative of real workspaces B. Complete silence has already been studied extensively by other researchers C. Silence is impossible to record accurately with standard equipment

4. Which task does Freya decide to use to measure concentration? A. A mental arithmetic task B. A proofreading task C. A memory recall task

5. Why does Dr. Petrov prefer the proofreading task over Freya's original idea? A. It takes less time to administer B. It avoids the confound of maths anxiety affecting performance C. It does not require any training for participants

6. Where does Dr. Petrov suggest Freya recruit her participants from? A. Social media, to maximise sample size B. Undergraduates on campus, tested in a bookable study room C. Members of the public in a local café

7. What does Dr. Petrov advise Freya to do regarding ethics approval? A. Wait until the proofreading materials are completely finalised before applying B. Submit the ethics application in outline first, then refine materials while waiting C. Skip formal ethics approval since the study involves minimal risk

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Dr. Nakamura: So, talk me through the design for the seedling study before you start growing anything. You're comparing red and blue LED light, is that right? Ben: Yes, we're growing bean seedlings under red LEDs in one group and blue LEDs in another, and measuring stem height after two weeks. Dr. Nakamura: How many seedlings per group? Sofia: We were planning five per group, to keep things manageable. Dr. Nakamura: Five's quite low for a plant study. A single unusually tall or short seedling could skew your average a lot at that size. I'd push that up to at least fifteen per group if you can manage the space. Ben: We can probably manage fifteen if we use the smaller trays instead of the large pots. Sofia: Agreed, fifteen it is then, using the smaller trays. Dr. Nakamura: Good. Now, what about a control group, are you including seedlings under ordinary white light, or just comparing red against blue directly? Ben: We hadn't planned a white-light group, actually, just red versus blue. Dr. Nakamura: I'd add one. Without a white-light baseline, you can say red grew taller than blue, but you can't say whether either colour sped growth up or slowed it down compared with normal conditions, and reviewers will ask that. Sofia: That's a good point, we'll add a third group under standard white light as a baseline. Dr. Nakamura: What about watering, will that be standardised across groups? Ben: We were going to water each tray "as needed," checking the soil by eye. Sofia: I actually think we should measure a fixed volume per tray on a set schedule instead of judging it by eye. Otherwise watering becomes a second variable we're not controlling, on top of the light colour. Ben: Good call, fixed volume and schedule for everyone, then, not "as needed." Dr. Nakamura: Agreed, that removes an obvious confound. Last question. Where will the trays be positioned in the growth room? Sofia: We were going to place the red group nearer the door and the blue group at the back, just because that's where the two light rigs already are. Dr. Nakamura: That worries me slightly. The area near the door tends to be a couple of degrees cooler here, so you'd have colour and temperature varying together. I'd rotate the trays' positions partway through the two weeks, or better, move both rigs to sit side by side away from the door. Ben: Moving both rigs away from the door sounds more reliable than rotating partway through, since we won't disturb the seedlings. Sofia: Agreed, let's reposition both rigs side by side, away from the door, rather than rotating them.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. How many seedlings per group does the final design use? A. Five B. Fifteen C. Twenty-five

2. What additional group does Dr. Nakamura recommend adding? A. A group grown in complete darkness B. A group grown under standard white light C. A group grown under green LED light

3. Why does Dr. Nakamura want a white-light baseline included? A. To show whether red or blue light speeds up or slows down growth compared with normal conditions B. To reduce the total cost of the LED equipment C. Because the funding body requires a control group by policy

4. How will watering be handled in the final design? A. Each tray watered "as needed," judged by eye B. A fixed volume of water given to each tray on a set schedule C. Seedlings watered only once, at the start of the experiment

5. Why does Sofia want watering standardised? A. To save time during the two-week study B. To avoid watering becoming an uncontrolled second variable alongside light colour C. Because the seedlings need less water under artificial light

6. How will the light rigs be arranged in the final design? A. Red group near the door, blue group at the back, as originally set up B. Trays rotated partway through the two weeks C. Both rigs repositioned side by side, away from the door

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Ms. Reyes: So, tell me about the placement, Chloe. How did the four weeks at Bellhaven Architects go overall? Chloe: Really useful, actually, though not quite what I expected going in. I thought I'd mostly be doing technical drawing work, but it turned out client communication took up far more of my time than the drawings did. Ms. Reyes: That's a common surprise on placements like this. Was there a particular moment that stood out to you? Chloe: Yes. In my first week, I was assigned to help redraft the floor plans for a small extension. I assumed I'd just be adjusting measurements based on the architect's notes, but then the client rang in with several changes of their own, and I ended up sitting in on that call, trying to translate what the client actually wanted into something the design team could work with. Ms. Reyes: How did that go? Chloe: Not brilliantly, if I'm honest. I focused so hard on getting the technical details right that I didn't ask enough clarifying questions, and we ended up redoing part of the plan the next day once the confusion came out. Ms. Reyes: That happens. Did the practice reassign that client relationship to someone else afterwards? Chloe: No, actually (my supervisor kept me on it rather than handing it to someone more senior. She said the mistake was useful precisely because I'd remember the questions to ask next time, and she was right) the second call with that client went much more smoothly. Ms. Reyes: Good. Looking back over the whole placement, what would you say is the main skill you want to develop before your next one? Chloe: I did think it might be the technical drawing software, since I was slower with that than some of the other students there. But actually, on reflection, I think the bigger gap is exactly that clarifying-questions habit. The software I can pick up with practice, but not asking enough questions cost us more time overall. Ms. Reyes: That's a fair distinction. And has the placement changed how you feel about architecture as a career? Chloe: It's confirmed it, if anything. I went in worried I'd find the client-facing side stressful and want to retreat into just the technical work, but I actually found I liked that part once I got more confident with it, so if anything it's pushed me towards roles with more client contact, not less. Ms. Reyes: That's a really useful thing to have found out four weeks in, rather than after you've committed to a first job.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. What did Chloe find took up more of her time than expected during the placement? A. Technical drawing work B. Client communication C. Administrative paperwork

2. What went wrong during the first client call Chloe sat in on? A. She asked too many questions and annoyed the client B. She did not ask enough clarifying questions, leading to part of the plan being redone C. She misunderstood the technical drawing software

3. What did Chloe's supervisor decide to do after the mix-up with the client? A. Reassign the client relationship to a more senior architect B. Keep Chloe working on the same client relationship C. Ask Chloe to apologise formally to the client in writing

4. What does Chloe identify as the main skill she wants to develop before her next placement? A. Technical drawing software B. Asking enough clarifying questions C. Time management

5. How has the placement affected Chloe's feelings about a career in architecture? A. It has made her want to avoid client-facing roles in future B. It has confirmed her interest, especially in client-facing work C. It has made her reconsider architecture as a career altogether

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Meera: So, did you get your draft essay back from Dr Whitfield yet? I picked mine up this morning and there's red pen absolutely everywhere.

Callum: Yeah, mine came back too. Honestly, I assumed the main problem would be that I hadn't cited enough sources. I only used about eight references for the whole thing. But that's not actually what she flagged at all.

Meera: Oh, really? What did she pick up on, then?

Callum: She said my thesis statement in the introduction was too broad. I'd basically written "remote work changes how teams function," which doesn't really commit to anything. She wants me to narrow it right down to one specific claim about creativity, since that's supposed to be the whole focus of the essay.

Meera: That makes sense, actually. Mine was almost the opposite problem. She said my thesis itself was fine (really precise, apparently) but my body paragraphs kept drifting away from it.

Callum: So your topic sentences weren't clear enough?

Meera: No, funnily enough, she'd ticked all of those and said they were strong. It's the middle of each paragraph where I lose the thread. I'll set up a clear claim and then just describe a study for three sentences without ever tying it back. She wants every paragraph to end with a sentence that explicitly links the evidence to my central argument.

Callum: Got it. Did she say anything about referencing?

Meera: Only a small thing. I'd mixed Harvard and footnote styles in a couple of places, which is an easy fix. The bigger shared issue, though, is our conclusions.

Callum: Mine basically just repeats the introduction word for word, doesn't it.

Meera: Same with mine. She wants an actual conclusion that spells out the implications of the argument, not a summary that just restates what we already said.

Callum: Fair. Did she mention the deadline at all? I was going to ask about an extension, given how much rewriting this needs.

Meera: I already asked. She said no extension for anyone, but she's opened up fifteen-minute consultation slots next week if we're still stuck after redrafting.

Callum: Okay, that's something. I think I'll try fixing the thesis statement on my own first, and only book a slot if I'm still not happy with it.

Meera: Probably wise. I'll do the same with my paragraph endings. Let's compare drafts again on Thursday, before we resubmit on Friday.

Callum: Sounds good. Same time as usual?

Meera: Yes, three o'clock in the library, like always.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. According to Callum, what did Dr Whitfield actually identify as the main problem with his introduction? A. It did not cite enough sources. B. Its thesis statement was too broad and unfocused. C. It did not explain the background of remote work clearly enough.

2. What problem does Dr Whitfield identify in Meera's body paragraphs? A. Her topic sentences were unclear. B. Each paragraph lacks a specific illustrative example. C. The middle of each paragraph drifts away from her central claim.

3. What does Meera say about the referencing in her essay? A. She used the wrong system throughout the entire essay. B. She mixed Harvard and footnote styles in a couple of places. C. She forgot to include a reference list altogether.

4. What do both students agree is the shared problem with their conclusions? A. The conclusions simply restate the introduction instead of addressing implications. B. The conclusions are too short relative to the rest of the essay. C. The conclusions introduce new evidence not covered in the main body.

5. What does Dr Whitfield say when Callum considers asking for an extension? A. She refuses to extend the deadline but offers consultation slots instead. B. She grants a short extension to both students. C. She says a decision on extensions will be made closer to the deadline.

6. What does Callum decide to do before considering booking a consultation slot? A. Ask Meera to review his whole draft first. B. Book a slot with Dr Whitfield immediately. C. Try revising his thesis statement on his own first.

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Sofia: Right, we've got all our data from the marble chip experiment, whole chips, halved chips, and powdered, each reacting with the same concentration of hydrochloric acid. Now we actually have to write the thing up before Friday.

Ade: Let's start with how we present the results. I was thinking three separate graphs, one for each chip size, so each one is really clear on its own.

Priya: I don't think that works, actually. If they're separate, nobody can compare the rates directly. We should put all three on one graph: volume of gas against time, with three lines, one per chip size. That way the difference in gradient jumps out immediately.

Sofia: Agreed, one graph's much stronger. We can put the raw data table in an appendix rather than the main body.

Ade: Fine by me. Now, what do we do about that weird result, the powdered chips' reading at ninety seconds? It's way faster than the trend around it.

Priya: We shouldn't just delete it. I think we keep it in the table but add a note in the write-up flagging it as a likely timing or reading error, rather than pretending it didn't happen.

Sofia: Yes, and to be fair, it doesn't actually change our overall conclusion, so there's no reason to hide it.

Ade: Speaking of the conclusion, powdered chips reacted fastest overall, right? Because they expose more surface area to the acid, so the rate increases as surface area increases.

Priya: Exactly, and that's the pattern across all three chip sizes, not just powder versus whole.

Sofia: Okay. What about the method section. How much detail do we need? Dr Okafor's brief just says "describe your method."

Ade: I'd say we need enough that someone else in the class could actually repeat it exactly. Quantities, concentration, how the gas syringe was set up, timing intervals, all of it.

Priya: Definitely not just a list of equipment with no numbers, that's what lost us marks in the first practical. And we can't copy the method sheet Dr Okafor gave us either; that counts as not writing it in our own words.

Sofia: Agreed on both counts. Now, sources of error. Ade, you mentioned timing error before. Anything else?

Ade: Timing's the obvious one, reaction time on the stopwatch. But we should also mention gas escaping before the bung was fully sealed each time, since that would make our rate look slower than it really was.

Priya: Good point, let's include both, not just the timing one.

Sofia: Last thing, the data table. Do we round the times, and where do the units go?

Priya: Round to the nearest whole second. The stopwatch reaction time makes anything more precise misleading. And units go once, in the column heading, not repeated after every single number.

Ade: Agreed. Let's combine our sections into one document and proofread it together Thursday evening, ready before the Friday deadline.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. How do they decide to present the gas-volume results? A. Three separate graphs, one for each chip size. B. A single bar chart showing total gas produced after five minutes. C. One graph with three lines, one per chip size, so rates can be compared directly.

2. What do they decide to do with the anomalous fast reading for the powdered chips at ninety seconds? A. Delete it from the results entirely. B. Keep it in the table but flag it as a likely error in the write-up. C. Recalculate it using the average of the surrounding points.

3. According to the discussion, why did the powdered marble chips react fastest overall? A. They expose more surface area to the acid than larger chips. B. They contain a different chemical composition from the whole chips. C. The acid used with them was more concentrated.

4. What level of detail do they agree the method section needs? A. A simple list of equipment, without quantities. B. Enough detail that another student could exactly repeat the experiment. C. A copy of Dr Okafor's original method sheet.

5. What sources of error do they agree to include? A. Timing error only. B. Gas escaping before the bung was sealed only. C. Both timing error and gas escaping before the bung was sealed.

6. What do they decide about how times are recorded in the data table? A. Rounded to the nearest whole second, with units stated once in the column heading. B. Recorded to two decimal places for precision. C. Units written after every individual number in the table.

7. What do they agree to do before submitting the report? A. Submit individual sections separately without combining them. B. Combine their sections into one document and proofread it together on Thursday evening. C. Submit without proofreading, given the Friday deadline.

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Daniel: Okay, so we've each pulled together a pile of possible sources for the literature review section. Let's go through them and decide what actually makes the cut.

Ines: Sure. Start with the one I flagged, that magazine feature on mentoring schemes reducing dropout rates. It's well written, but I couldn't find a single citation or study reference in it anywhere.

Daniel: I noticed that too. My first thought was we could still use it, just flagged as anecdotal support rather than solid evidence. But actually, thinking about it more, I don't think it earns a place at all. There's no way to verify any of the claims it makes.

Ines: Agreed, let's leave it out entirely. Next, there's that 2004 study, the one nearly every other paper in this field cites.

Daniel: Right, my instinct was almost to drop it for being outdated, since our review's meant to focus on current practice. But it's clearly foundational, half our other sources build directly on its framework.

Ines: True. I'd say include it, but only as background in the early part of the review, and make sure we pair it with more recent studies so it isn't the only thing our argument rests on.

Daniel: Agreed. Now, what about the report from that mentoring charity, the one with the impressive-looking statistics?

Ines: That one worries me a bit. The charity runs mentoring programmes itself, so it has a direct interest in making those programmes look effective. I'm not saying the numbers are fabricated, but the framing could easily be one-sided.

Daniel: Fair point, we should treat it cautiously, maybe cross-check its headline figures against an independent source rather than citing it on its own.

Ines: Exactly. Now, how are we actually searching for the rest of our sources? I've mostly just been typing things into a general search engine.

Daniel: I think we need to be more systematic than that. Let's use the university's academic database properly, set specific keyword combinations, restrict the publication date range, and only look at peer-reviewed journals.

Ines: Agreed, that'll cut out a lot of the noise we're currently wading through. Last thing. How many sources are we actually aiming to include? I've got nearly forty on my longlist right now.

Daniel: Forty's far too many for a review this length. I think we need to be disciplined and narrow it down to somewhere around fifteen to twenty, the sources most directly relevant to our actual research question, rather than everything remotely related to mentoring.

Ines: Agreed. Let's each go back and re-rank our lists against that fifteen-to-twenty target before we meet again.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. What do Daniel and Ines decide about the magazine feature on mentoring? A. Exclude it entirely because its claims cannot be verified. B. Include it, flagged as anecdotal evidence only. C. Include it as the opening example in their introduction.

2. What is agreed about the widely-cited 2004 study? A. Include it as background, paired with more recent studies. B. Exclude it because it is outdated. C. Make it the central focus of the whole review.

3. What concern does Ines raise about the mentoring charity's report? A. It was published too recently to have been peer-reviewed. B. It contains too little quantitative data to be useful. C. It may present a one-sided view because the charity benefits from its programmes looking effective.

4. How do they decide to search for the remaining sources? A. Continue using a general search engine, since it has worked so far. B. Rely only on the reference list of the 2004 study. C. Use the university's academic database with defined keywords, a date range, and a peer-review filter.

5. What is the final decision about how many sources to include? A. As many as possible, since Ines already has nearly forty. B. Around fifteen to twenty sources most directly relevant to their research question. C. Exactly ten sources, to match last year's example review.

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Ms Delgado: Thanks for coming in together, since you're both applying for the same semester exchange, it's easier to go through the details once. Have you decided between the two partner universities yet?

Charlotte: We've been going back and forth. University A has lower tuition top-up fees, which was tempting at first.

Marco: But once we actually checked the module lists properly, University B works out better for us, far more of its modules map directly onto our credit requirements back home. Cost mattered less once we saw how much extra paperwork University A's modules would need.

Ms Delgado: That's the right way to weigh it up. Now, University B does have a language requirement, but it only applies to two specific modules, the ones taught in the local language. Everything else on their standard list is taught in English, so it's not a blanket requirement.

Charlotte: That's a relief. I was worried we'd both need a full language certificate just to go at all.

Ms Delgado: Not at all. Now, accommodation. My strong advice is not to book anything privately off-campus before you leave, even if you find something that looks cheap online.

Marco: We were actually considering that, to save money.

Ms Delgado: I'd steer you away from it. Apply through the exchange partner's own international office for university-managed accommodation instead. It's guaranteed, and it's usually arranged before you land, which private bookings often aren't.

Charlotte: Okay, we'll do that. Marco, what about the Comparative Politics module you wanted to take?

Marco: Right, I was told it transfers automatically, no paperwork needed.

Ms Delgado: Actually, that's not quite right, no module transfers automatically. You'll need a syllabus comparison form approved by your home department before you leave, so the content's confirmed as equivalent in advance.

Marco: Ah, okay, I'll get that started this week, then.

Ms Delgado: Good. And on funding, are you both applying for the general mobility grant?

Charlotte: Yes, and I assumed that was the only funding available.

Ms Delgado: There's also a supplementary bursary for this particular exchange, and the eligibility criteria don't overlap with the mobility grant, so it's worth applying for both rather than choosing one.

Marco: Good to know, we'll apply for both, then.

Ms Delgado: Last thing, the application deadline. It's fixed at three weeks before the end of this term, and that applies to both universities equally, so there's no advantage in choosing one over the other on timing grounds.

Charlotte: Good, that clears things up. Thanks so much.

Ms Delgado: No problem, send me the syllabus comparison form as soon as it's ready, Marco.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. Why do Charlotte and Marco decide to apply to University B rather than University A? A. University B has more places available before the deadline. B. More of University B's modules map onto their credit requirements at home. C. University A charges lower tuition top-up fees.

2. What does Ms Delgado say about the language requirement at University B? A. It applies only to two specific modules; the rest are taught in English. B. It requires a full language certificate for the whole exchange. C. It has recently been removed for exchange students.

3. What does Ms Delgado recommend regarding accommodation? A. Apply for university-managed accommodation through the partner's international office. B. Book private off-campus accommodation early to secure a cheap rate. C. Wait until arrival to arrange accommodation in person.

4. What does Ms Delgado clarify about the Comparative Politics module? A. It transfers automatically without any paperwork. B. It requires a syllabus comparison form approved before departure. C. It cannot be transferred under any circumstances.

5. What is agreed about funding applications? A. Apply for both the mobility grant and the supplementary bursary. B. Apply for the mobility grant only, as Charlotte first assumed. C. Apply for the supplementary bursary only, since it covers more costs.

6. What does Ms Delgado say about the application deadline? A. It differs depending on which university is chosen. B. It has just been extended by several weeks. C. It falls three weeks before the end of the current term, for both universities.

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Grace: Okay, before we write the evaluation section, let's actually talk through how the project went, not just what the results were.

Oliver: Fair. I'd say our biggest strength was the response rate, we got just over two hundred completed surveys, which was noticeably higher than most of the other groups managed.

Nadia: Agreed, that's worth highlighting. But I want to flag a limitation before we get carried away with the good stuff, our sample skews heavily towards first-years. We handed out most of the surveys in first-year lecture halls, since that's where we had easiest access, and it shows in the age and course-year breakdown.

Grace: Fair point. That should go in the write-up honestly.

Oliver: Speaking of honesty, what about question six, the one on "commuting stress"? Respondents clearly interpreted it differently, some answered about the journey itself, others about arriving late.

Nadia: We can't just quietly recode those answers to fit whichever pattern we want. I think we keep the responses as they are in the analysis, but flag clearly that the wording was ambiguous and should be rewritten if anyone repeats this.

Grace: Agreed. Now, the timeline. How do we describe that?

Oliver: Not brilliantly. Our early response rate was slow, so data collection overran by about two weeks, pushing the analysis phase later than planned.

Nadia: Worth being upfront about that too.

Grace: What about the feedback we got after the in-class presentation last week?

Oliver: A few people said the topic itself wasn't especially engaging, which stung a bit, but the more useful comment was that our graphs were genuinely hard to read from the back of the room. The axis labels were too small.

Nadia: That's the actionable one. We should mention that we'd enlarge the visuals next time, regardless of what people thought of the topic itself.

Grace: Agreed. So, for the future-research recommendation. What should we suggest?

Nadia: Definitely not repeating the exact same survey unchanged. That would just reproduce the same sampling problem. I'd recommend distributing it across a much wider range of year groups next time, and running the collection window longer so the response rate isn't so rushed.

Oliver: I did wonder about switching entirely to interviews instead of a survey, but honestly that's too big a change to recommend on the basis of one project, better to refine the survey approach first.

Grace: Agreed. And finally, how do we frame the limitations section overall? I don't want it to read as if we're trashing our own work.

Nadia: We shouldn't downplay them, but we shouldn't dwell either, frame each one as a specific, actionable direction for whoever continues this next.

Oliver: And it definitely needs its own section. The module guidelines require one, so we can't leave it out.

Grace: Agreed on all counts. Let's draft it along those lines.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. What do they agree was the main strength of the project? A. The response rate, which was higher than most other groups achieved. B. The originality of the research topic. C. The complexity of the statistical methods used.

2. What sampling limitation does Nadia raise? A. The sample was too small overall. B. The sample excluded part-time students entirely. C. The sample over-represented first-year students because of where surveys were distributed.

3. What do they decide to do about the ambiguous "commuting stress" question? A. Keep the responses as given but flag the ambiguous wording in the evaluation. B. Recode the answers to fit a consistent pattern. C. Remove the question from the analysis altogether.

4. How does Oliver describe the data-collection timeline? A. It overran by around two weeks because of a slow early response rate. B. It ran exactly to the original schedule. C. It finished two weeks early, giving them extra analysis time.

5. What does Nadia say is the most useful piece of feedback from the presentation? A. That the presentation ran over its allotted time. B. That the topic was not particularly engaging. C. That the graphs were hard to read from the back of the room.

6. What do they agree to recommend for future research? A. Repeat the same survey unchanged next year. B. Distribute the survey across a wider range of year groups with a longer collection window. C. Switch entirely to qualitative interviews instead of a survey.

7. How do they decide to frame the limitations section? A. Downplay the limitations to keep a positive overall impression. B. Omit it, since the results were largely positive. C. Present limitations honestly, framed as specific directions for future work.